Work

Acetate‐ Versus Lactate‐Buffered Crystalloids for Prevention of Post‐ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Without Access to Rectal NSAIDs: A Multicentre Double‐Blind Randomized Trial

Year: 2026

Type: article

Study designs: Randomized Controlled Trial, Clinical Trial

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Aggressive peri-procedural intravenous fluid (IVF) therapy with lactated Ringer's solution (LR) reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), but the standard 8-h protocol is impractical in outpatient settings and the optimal fluid type remains uncertain. We compared LR with an acetate-buffered balanced crystalloid (AC) using a symptom-guided 4-h aggressive IVF protocol. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomized superiority trial was conducted at three academic hospitals in Korea where rectal NSAIDs are unavailable. Adults with native papillae and moderate-to-high PEP risk were randomized to receive LR or AC. The IVF protocol comprised 10 mL/kg boluses before and after ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg/h for 4 hours and extended to 8 hours if abdominal pain developed or worsened. The primary outcome was PEP incidence; secondary outcomes included early post-ERCP pain and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 813 patients (404 LR, 409 AC), PEP occurred in 12.4% of the LR group and 11.5% of the AC group (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.35; P = 0.70). Rates of mild (7.9% vs. 7.1%) and moderate (4.5% vs. 4.4%) PEP were similar, and no severe PEP or fluid overload occurred. Among the 68.3% of patients who remained asymptomatic at 4 hours and required only 4-h IVF, PEP occurred in 7.4%, with no cases of severe PEP. CONCLUSION: In this superiority trial, acetate-buffered crystalloid did not reduce PEP compared with lactated Ringer's solution, and no significant safety differences were observed between the two agents. Lactated Ringer's remains the recommended first-line crystalloid for aggressive hydration when rectal NSAIDs are unavailable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05832047).

Source: United European Gastroenterology Journal

DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.70281